I can write shell scripts that trap SIGINT just fine, but I can't seem to trap SIGQUIT.
#!/bin/bash
function die {
echo "Dying on signal $1"
exit 0
}
trap 'die "SIGINT"' SIGINT
trap 'die "SIGQUIT"' SIGQUIT
while true; do
echo "sleeping..."
sleep 5
done
Executing this script and pressing CTRL-C has the desired effect, but pressing CTRL-\ (which, as I understand, should trigger SIGQUIT) does nothing except print ^\ in the terminal. Why?
I have two running theories. The first is that the semantics of SIGINT and SIGQUIT are different such that SIGQUIT only gets sent to the child process sleep, while SIGINT gets sent to both the child process and the parent bash process. If this is the case, where is it documented?
My second theory is that bash not only ignores (i.e., has a no-op handler for) SIGQUIT by default (as the man page suggests), but does not allow it to be trapped at all. This theory overlaps with the first theory, since it could be the case that SIGQUIT is going to both parent and child, but the parent (bash) just can't trap it. If this is the case, is there any way to trap SIGQUIT in a bash script?... perhaps some shopt I can set?
Edit: this is on Ubuntu 10.10 in gnome-terminal 2.32.0 running bash 4.1.5, and yes ^\ is configured to issue SIGQUIT (as reported by stty -a and confirmed by issuing ^\ SIGQUITs to other programs like ping).
UPDATE:
I just discovered that the problem must be due somehow to gnome-terminal. If I run this script from a virtual console (i.e., ctrl-alt-f1 to get out of X), it traps SIGQUIT perfectly fine when I press ^\. Same bash and everything, so the only difference must be the terminal emulator. So now my question becomes: how can I configure gnome-terminal to behave like the virtual console in this respect? I diff'd the outputs of stty -a in the virtual console and in gnome-terminal, and while there are differences, nothing seems immediately relevant (e.g., they both have quit = ^\;).
UPDATE 2:
Another experiment. Simply execute $ sleep 60 in gnome-terminal; press ^\ and the signal goes uncaught. Now execute $ sleep 60 in the virtual console; press ^\ and the signal is caught -- the process prints Quit and exits. But now run $ ping google.com in gnome-terminal and press ^\ -- the signal is caught and handled as expected. So there is something weird about gnome-terminal such that SIGQUIT can be caught by some programs, but not by others, even if those other others do catch it when invoked from the virtual console. Perhaps I should just upgrade my gnome-terminal.
I can only assume that this was some sort of bug in gnome-terminal 2.32.0; I have since upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04, with gnome-terminal 2.32.1 (and bash 4.2.8) and SIGQUIT is now trapped as expected.
I observe the same behavior on Fedora 19 with XFCE: according to ps s, bash in the xfce4-terminal has SIGQUIT ignored, running yes >/dev/null & and then ps s shows that even a subprocess has SIGQUIT ignored. When I (from the same terminal) run ssh localhost, the shell in the ssh session also has SIGQUIT ignored, but yes >/dev/null & has not.
Given the above comment which mentions gnome-terminal, I would guess the bug is in the common part of the two terminals: the vte library. Mine is vte-0.28.2-9.fc19.x86_64.
Related
I try to send a signal from one terminal A to another terminal B. Both run an interactive shell.
In terminal B, I trap signal SIGUSR1 like so :
$ trap 'source ~/mycommand' SIGUSR1
Now in terminal A I send a signal like so :
$ kill -SIGUSR1 pidOfB
Unfortunately, nothing happens in B. If I want to have my command executed, I need to switch to B and either input a new command or press enter.
How can I avoid this drawback and immediately execute my command instead ?
EDIT :
It's important to note that I want to interact directly with the interactive shell in terminal B from terminal A.
For this reason, every solution where the trap command would be executed in a subshell would not work for me...
Also, terminal B must stay interactive.
The shell may simply be stuck in a blocking read, waiting for command-line input. Hitting enter causes the handler to execute before the entered command. Running a non-blocking command like wait:
$ sleep 60 & wait
then sending the signal causes wait to terminate immediately, followed by the output of the handler.
Based on the answers and my numerous attempt to solve this, I don't think it's possible to catch a trap signal immediately in an interactive bash terminal.
For it to trigger, there must be an interaction from the user.
This is due to the readline program blocks until a newline is entered. And there is no way to stop this read.
My solution is to use dtach, a small program that emulate the detach feature of screen.
This program can run a fully interactive shell and features in its last version a way to communicate via a custom socket to this shell (or whatever program you launch)
To start a new dtach session running an interactive bash, in terminal B :
$ dtach -a /tmp/MySocket bash -i
Now from terminal A, we can send a message to the bash session in terminal B like so :
$ echo 'echo hello' | dtach -p /tmp/MySocket
In terminal B, we now see :
$ echo hello
hello
To expand on that if I now do in terminal A :
$ trap 'echo "cd $(pwd)" | dtach -p /tmp/MySocket' DEBUG
I'll have the directory of the two terminals synced
PS :I'd still like to know if there is a way to do this in pure bash
I use a similar trap so that periodically I can (from a separate cron job) force all idle bash processes to do a 'history -a'. I found that if I trap SIGALRM instead of SIGUSR1, then the bash blocking read seems not to be a problem: the trap runs now, rather than next time one hits return. I tried SIGINT, but that caused an annoying "^C", followed by a new prompt line, to be displayed. I haven't yet found any drawbacks of using SIGALRM, but perhaps they will arise.
It may be buffering.
As a test, try installing a loop trigger. In window A:
{ trap 'ls' USR1; while sleep 1; do echo>/dev/null;done } &
[1] 7316
in window B:
kill -usr1 7316
back in window A the ls is firing when the loop does an echo.
Don't know if that will help, but it's something.
I have a bash script, its contents are:
function foo {
echo "Foo!"
}
function clean {
echo "exiting"
}
trap clean EXIT
trap foo SIGTERM
echo "Starting process with PID: $$"
while :
do
sleep 60
done
I execute this on a terminal with:
./my_script
And then do this on another terminal
kill -SIGTERM my_script_pid # obviously the PID is the one echoed from my_script
I would expect to see the message "Foo!" from the other terminal, but It's not working. SIGKILL works and the EXIT code is also executed.
Using Ctrl-C on the terminal my_script is running on triggers foo normally, but somehow I can't send the signal SIGTERM from another terminal to this one.
Replacing SIGTERM with any other signal doesn't change a thing (besides Ctrl-C not triggering anything, it was actually mapped to SIGUSR1 in the beginning).
It may be worth mentioning that just the signal being trapped is not working, and any other signal is having the default behaviour.
So, what am I missing? Any clues?
EDIT: I also just checked it wasn't a privilege issue (that would be weird as I'm able to send SIGKILL anyway), but it doesn't seem to be that.
Bash runs the trap only after sleep returns.
To understand why, think in C / Unix internals: While the signal is dispatched instantly to bash, the corresponding signal handler that bash has setup only does something like received_sigterm = true.
Only when sleep returns, and the wait system call which bash issued after starting the sleep process returns also, bash resumes its normal work and executes your trap (after noticing received_sigterm).
This is done this way for good reasons: Doing I/O (or generally calling into the kernel) directly from a signal handler generally results in undefined behaviour as far as I know - although I can't tell more about that.
Apart from this technical reason, there is another reason why bash doesn't run the trap instantly: This would actually undermine the fundamental semantics of the shell. Jobs (this includes pipelines) are executed strictly in a sequential manner unless you explicitly mess with background jobs.
The PID that you originally print is for the bash instance that executes your script, not for the sleep process that it is waiting on. During sleep, the signal is likely to be ignored.
If you want to see the effect that you are looking for, replace sleep with a shorter-lived process like ps.
function foo {
echo "Foo!"
}
function clean {
echo "exiting"
}
trap clean EXIT
trap foo SIGTERM
echo "Starting process with PID: $$"
while :
do
ps > /dev/null
done
I want to write a bash script that will continue to run if the user is disconnected, but can be aborted if the user presses Ctrl+C.
I can solve the first part of it like this:
#!/bin/bash
cmd='
#commands here, avoiding single quotes...
'
nohup bash -c "$cmd" &
tail -f nohup.out
But pressing Ctrl+C obviously just kills the tail process, not the main body. Can I have both? Maybe using Screen?
I want to write a bash script that will continue to run if the user is disconnected, but can be aborted if the user presses Ctrl+C.
I think this is exactly the answer on the question you formulated, this one without screen:
#!/bin/bash
cmd=`cat <<EOF
# commands here
EOF
`
nohup bash -c "$cmd" &
# store the process id of the nohup process in a variable
CHPID=$!
# whenever ctrl-c is pressed, kill the nohup process before exiting
trap "kill -9 $CHPID" INT
tail -f nohup.out
Note however that nohup is not reliable. When the invoking user logs out, chances are that nohup also quits immediately. In that case disown works better.
bash -c "$cmd" &
CHPID=$!
disown
This is probably the simplest form using screen:
screen -S SOMENAME script.sh
Then, if you get disconnected, on reconnection simply run:
screen -r SOMENAME
Ctrl+C should continue to work as expected
Fact 1: When a terminal (xterm for example) gets closed, the shell is supposed to send a SIGHUP ("hangup") to any processes running in it. This harkens back to the days of analog modems, when a program needed to clean up after itself if mom happened to pick up the phone while you were online. The signal could be trapped, so that a special function could do the cleanup (close files, remove temporary junk, etc). The concept of "losing your connection" still exists even though we use sockets and SSH tunnels instead of analog modems. (Concepts don't change; all that changes is the technology we use to implement them.)
Fact 2: The effect of Ctrl-C depends on your terminal settings. Normally, it will send a SIGINT, but you can check by running stty -a in your shell and looking for "intr".
You can use these facts to your advantage, using bash's trap command. For example try running this in a window, then press Ctrl-C and check the contents of /tmp/trapped. Then run it again, close the window, and again check the contents of /tmp/trapped:
#!/bin/bash
trap "echo 'one' > /tmp/trapped" 1
trap "echo 'two' > /tmp/trapped" 2
echo "Waiting..."
sleep 300000
For information on signals, you should be able to man signal (FreeBSD or OSX) or man 7 signal (Linux).
(For bonus points: See how I numbered my facts? Do you understand why?)
So ... to your question. To "survive" disconnection, you want to specify behaviour that will be run when your script traps SIGHUP.
(Bonus question #2: Now do you understand where nohup gets its name?)
/bin/sh -version
GNU sh, version 1.14.7(1)
exitfn () {
# Resore signal handling for SIGINT
echo "exiting with trap" >> /tmp/logfile
rm -f /var/run/lockfile.pid # Growl at user,
exit # then exit script.
}
trap 'exitfn; exit' SIGINT SIGQUIT SIGTERM SIGKILL SIGHUP
The above is my function in shell script.
I want to call it in some special conditions...like
when:
"kill -9" fires on pid of this script
"ctrl + z" press while it is running on -x mode
server reboots while script is executing ..
In short, with any kind of interrupt in script, should do some action
eg. rm -f /var/run/lockfile.pid
but my above function is not working properly; it works only for terminal close or "ctrl + c"
Kindly don't suggest to upgrade "bash / sh" version.
SIGKILL cannot be trapped by the trap command, or by any process. It is a guarenteed kill signal, that by it's definition cannot be trapped. Thus upgrading you sh/bash will not work anyway.
You can't trap kill -9 that's the whole point of it, to destroy processes violently that don't respond to other signals (there's a workaround for this, see below).
The server reboot should first deliver a signal to your script which should be caught with what you have.
As to the CTRL-Z, that also gives you a signal, SIGSTOP from memory, so you may want to add that. Though that wouldn't normally be a reason to shut down your process since it may be then put into the background and restarted (with bg).
As to what do do for those situations where your process dies without a catchable signal (like the -9 case), the program should check for that on startup.
By that, I mean lockfile.pid should store the actual PID of the process that created it (by using echo $$ >/var/run/myprog_lockfile.pid for example) and, if you try to start your program, it should check for the existence of that process.
If the process doesn't exist, or it exists but isn't the right one (based on name usually), your new process should delete the pidfile and carry on as if it was never there. If the old process both exists and is the right one, your new process should log a message and exit.
I am unable to trap a signal when running in a child / background process.
Here is my simple bash script:
#!/bin/bash
echo "in child"
trap "got_signal" SIGINT
function got_signal {
echo "trapped"
exit 0
}
while [ true ]; do
sleep 2
done
When running this and later do
kill -SIGINT (pid)
everything works as expected, it prints trapped and exits.
Now, if I start the same script from a parent script like this:
#!/bin/bash
echo "starting the child"
./child.sh &
Then the child does not trap the signal anymore.... ?
After changing to use SIGTERM instead of SIGINT, it seems to be working correctly... ?
The bash manpage on OSX (but it should be the same in other versions) has this to say about signal handling:
Non-builtin commands run by bash have signal handlers set to the values
inherited by the shell from its parent. When job control is not in
effect, asynchronous commands ignore SIGINT and SIGQUIT in addition to
these inherited handlers.
and further on, under the trap command:
Signals ignored upon entry to the shell cannot
be trapped or reset.
Since scripts don't use job control by default, this means the case you're talking about.
Per your note:
Signals ignored upon entry to the shell cannot be trapped or reset.
I have noticed that ZSH does not ignore the signals sent back and forth between parent and child process, but bash does. Here's the question I posted myself:
Trapping CHLD signal - ZSH works but ksh/bash/sh don't?